Jump to content

Recommended Posts

.. What it shows is that traffic is down and active travel is up. Which is exactly what LTNs set out to achieve.


The clean air for no one campaign, would put traffic back on to every street and discourage active travel.


We need to work to improve traffic on the two streets where there is still a problem (Burbage and EDG). But not to lose the gains we have made.

Does the report include which roads are defined as External Roads and which are Internal Roads and whether the "specific" roads were defined before the data was gathered or afterwards


It is a shame that they didn't have any counters for Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and also the South Circular along Dulwich Common as they are roads that would be expected to pick up displaced traffic.


Is there a link for the full report?

rjsmall Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there a link for the full report?


At the bottom of this page:

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rjsmall Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Is there a link for the full report?

>

> At the bottom of this page:

> https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/i

> mproving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review


Thanks.

rjsmall Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does the report include which roads are defined as

> External Roads and which are Internal Roads and

> whether the "specific" roads were defined before

> the data was gathered or afterwards

>

> It is a shame that they didn't have any counters

> for Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and also

> the South Circular along Dulwich Common as they

> are roads that would be expected to pick up

> displaced traffic.

>

> Is there a link for the full report?



RJsmall - there was a counter on Lordship Lane near the Grove Tavern and the council say it recorded a 22% decrease in traffic.....no I don't believe it either.


The counter is near Melford Road so would be in the stationery traffic zone and there is some debate that the strips can't monitor traffic that is crawling and council's know this and out strips close to congestion when they want to record low numbers. There was originally a set of strips near the Court Lane but they were moved ahead of the review to closer to Grove Tavern.....read into that what you will.


Interestingly there is also a set of strips close to Townley on Lordship Lane and no data from that one has been shared.

I registered for this but never received a link to the meeting. I presume this is on now?



AylwardS Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The Dulwich Review consultation has been extended

> until 18 July and a further online meeting added.

> See below for update from Southwark Highways.

>

> Dear all,

>

> Thank you for your continued engagement with our

> Review of the road schemes in Dulwich Village,

> East Dulwich and Champion Hill.

>

> Thousands of residents have already completed the

> consultation which can be found at

> www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichstreetspacereview. We

> want to allow some extra time for those who have

> not yet completed it, so we are extending the

> deadline to Sunday 18th July.

>

> We have also published a report on the monitoring

> data that we have obtained over the past couple of

> months. You can view this at

> www.southwark.gov.uk/dulwichstreetspacereview . We

> are going to hold an extra community meeting to

> discuss the data and what it tells us about the

> road schemes, on Tuesday 13th July 6pm.

>

> This will be an online meeting ? to register for

> the meeting please go to

> https://dulwichreviewdata.eventbrite.co.uk

>

> Kind regards,

>

> Southwark Highways

I just went to it. I asked a question in the chat and put my hand up to ask as well and was roundly ignored - and the questions were pretty innocuous too, I thought.


(In case they weren't innocuous, I asked (i) whether we could have a split out of weekday and weekend data on roads affected by the timed closures, to better understand the impact of the timed closures; and (ii) whether using April as the comparison month, which is a school holiday month, might mask any potential redirection of school traffic and also cycle to school traffic.)


Mostly the feedback to the council was quite negative - one or two supporters including a fairly staged cameo by Tom of Denmark Hill (whoever that be) who Cllr Simmonds invited to speak right at the end. The interjections of "we don't trust you" summed it up quite well (my opinion obviously).

On the April point they did seem to indicate that there would be more data for May and June coming soon so that will be helpful to understand what is a trend vs anomaly.


I'd also agree that more granularity of data would be helpful - I'd like to see the directional traffic counts rather than in total and would agree that weekday vs weekend would also be helpful.


The questions were supposed to be split by area though - East Dulwich, then the village and then champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark Hill spoke at the end was because he was one of the questionners from that area. The assumption that only negative views can be genuine does reflect your views rather than people being an obvious plant.

northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the April point they did seem to indicate that

> there would be more data for May and June coming

> soon so that will be helpful to understand what is

> a trend vs anomaly.

>

> I'd also agree that more granularity of data would

> be helpful - I'd like to see the directional

> traffic counts rather than in total and would

> agree that weekday vs weekend would also be

> helpful.

>

> The questions were supposed to be split by area

> though - East Dulwich, then the village and then

> champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark Hill

> spoke at the end was because he was one of the

> questionners from that area. The assumption that

> only negative views can be genuine does reflect

> your views rather than people being an obvious

> plant.



I think we also need to see the data from all the strips that were placed in other parts of certain roads before the review data period. What happened to all the info gathered in Oct/Nov 2020?

I?ll acknowledge the point about Tom, although I still think it felt quite scripted.


Do you think that when the June data comes, they?ll then compare it with an ?adjusted? June 2019 baseline then - or just give the new data? It should be the former? Hopefully they?ll also give some more info about on what basis they?ve done the ?adjustment?.



northernmonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> On the April point they did seem to indicate that

> there would be more data for May and June coming

> soon so that will be helpful to understand what is

> a trend vs anomaly.

>

> I'd also agree that more granularity of data would

> be helpful - I'd like to see the directional

> traffic counts rather than in total and would

> agree that weekday vs weekend would also be

> helpful.

>

> The questions were supposed to be split by area

> though - East Dulwich, then the village and then

> champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark Hill

> spoke at the end was because he was one of the

> questionners from that area. The assumption that

> only negative views can be genuine does reflect

> your views rather than people being an obvious

> plant.

I don't know on the data baseline comparison - don't think they went into that level of detail but will be something to look at in what is released and understand the impact. If anything leaving the April baseline unadjusted could overstate the impact of any increases in traffic I'd have thought for May ?


In terms of more general questions on do we believe the data - I'd prefer to see more months monitoring before reaching conclusions - though working up a hypothesis and then determining whether subsequent data sets reflect this is a reasonable basis for assessment.





legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?ll acknowledge the point about Tom, although I

> still think it felt quite scripted.

>

> Do you think that when the June data comes,

> they?ll then compare it with an ?adjusted? June

> 2019 baseline then - or just give the new data? It

> should be the former? Hopefully they?ll also give

> some more info about on what basis they?ve done

> the ?adjustment?.

>

>

> northernmonkey Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > On the April point they did seem to indicate

> that

> > there would be more data for May and June

> coming

> > soon so that will be helpful to understand what

> is

> > a trend vs anomaly.

> >

> > I'd also agree that more granularity of data

> would

> > be helpful - I'd like to see the directional

> > traffic counts rather than in total and would

> > agree that weekday vs weekend would also be

> > helpful.

> >

> > The questions were supposed to be split by area

> > though - East Dulwich, then the village and

> then

> > champion hill so the fact that Tom of Denmark

> Hill

> > spoke at the end was because he was one of the

> > questionners from that area. The assumption

> that

> > only negative views can be genuine does reflect

> > your views rather than people being an obvious

> > plant.

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LTN BooHoo Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Rockets Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > They are out again today...there is a group

> > > congregating outside Saucy with Charlie now.

> > It's

> > > almost as if they are concerned about

> > > something.....

> >

> > Global warming? Our climate emergency?

> Inactivity?

> > Obesity? Pollution? Our children?s future? The

> > fact that we have built our lives around the

> motor

> > vehicle and if we have any decency we will

> > acknowledge that we must seek alternatives?

> >

> > I know, none of the above. Let?s just carry on

> as

> > we were. Have a nice day.

>

> I am pretty sure that is not their

> concern....these are politicians trying to

> manipulate the result of the review. It's so

> brazen it just shows how out of control they are.


Have you read the New Southwark Plan? There is a clear adopted policy mandate to reduce carbon emissions. We can?t achieve this by carrying on as we are. It?s an inconvenient truth that we all have to contribute. The review is ongoing and we won?t understand the cost/benefits of the interventions for at least a year maybe more. Councillors are entitled to knock on doors and I suggest this will have only a minimal impact on the outcome of the review.


I read on Twitter ? we are going to vote you out?. What impact will this have? If conservative/independent councillors are elected will they have a stronger voice when addressing a labour council? Not likely


Southwark has been a progressive forward thinking borough for years now. Do you really think they are going to back down and respond like conservative councils eg K&C or Westminster? We have a climate emergency we ALL need to wake up.

LTN BooHoo - yes we agree but this route Southwark have taken is not at all equitable....whilst some benefit the majority don't.


The council may be able to bus in votes from LTN lobby groups outside of Dulwich to try to influence the review result but they can't do that in the councillor elections in May and they may be in for a torrid time at the polls - there are lot of local residents who are disgusted by the approach the council and councillors have taken.


All there needs to be are a couple of independent candidates or a sensible Lib Dem candidate and you can see a shift taking place and the Red Wall of Southwark starts seeing a few different coloured bricks. To be honest Southwark needs some opposition as there is very little accountability right now and it's why people like Leo Pollack get away with what they were doing for so long and it's why the council is able to treat residents with contempt as they have done during the whole of the LTN debacle.

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LTN BooHoo - yes we agree but this route Southwark

> have taken is not at all equitable....whilst some

> benefit the majority don't.

>

> The council may be able to bus in votes from LTN

> lobby groups outside of Dulwich to try to

> influence the review result but they can't do that

> in the councillor elections in May and they may be

> in for a torrid time at the polls - there are lot

> of local residents who are disgusted by the

> approach the council and councillors have taken.

>

> All there needs to be are a couple of independent

> candidates or a sensible Lib Dem candidate and you

> can see a shift taking place and the Red Wall of

> Southwark starts seeing a few different coloured

> bricks. To be honest Southwark needs some

> opposition as there is very little accountability

> right now and it's why people like Leo Pollack get

> away with what they were doing for so long and

> it's why the council is able to treat residents

> with contempt as they have done during the whole

> of the LTN debacle.


I disagree. In the last election, candidates like Fox, who ran on a platform that would see the filters in their areas removed, lost their deposits.


Whereas, Councillors in Waltham Forest were all re-elected after receiving deaths threats by anti LTN advocates when their filters were introduced some years ago. This is a cross party federal, regional and local initiative. The Dulwich filters were all consulted on prior to installation and those which were introduced under the emergency traffic order procedures are perfectly legal.


What is your solution to meet our climate emergency? Ask people to give up their SUVs/short journeys nicely?

Do you think people voted in the mayoral election on the LTN issue given the mayor has practically no power or influence over LTNs? I certainly didn?t, and any candidate campaigning in that issue was really misleading people a bit. True of candidates across the spectrum.


A lot of the anti-Labour sentiment locally is not so much anti-LTN sentiment as anti-the-way these councillors and this council are behaving. It extends to lots of people unhappy with similar behaviour in other contexts eg rooftop housing, failing to deal with / monitor developer commitments to provide social housing, building on green spaces.

Do you think a lifetime labour voter would shift to Tory Bailey over ltns? It was a desperate move for a loser. But locally I won?t be voting Labour again. They have betrayed the people they stand for. What happened to Fairer Futures for all? It?s not LTNs as a principle but where they were placed in Dulwich and who benefited that was the breaking point.

A pro-LTN mayor gives cover & support to pro-LTN councils and people have been known to register a protest vote ie. vote tory for a single issue.


Most people in london don't drive and welcome LTNs and this will be reflected in the local elections next year.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • So top of Lane. Local Sainsbury, middle Co Op and M and S and bottom Tesco Express…..now everyone should be happy except those that want a Waitrose as well…0h and  don’t forget M and S near ED Station….
    • Direct link to joint statement : https://thehaguegroup.org/meetings-bogota-en/?link_id=2&can_id=2d0a0048aad3d4915e3e761ac87ffe47&source=email-pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogota-breakthrough&email_referrer=email_2819587&email_subject=pi-briefing-no-26-the-bogot_-breakthrough&&   No. 26 | The Bogotá Breakthrough “The era of impunity is over.” That was the message from Bogotá, Colombia, where governments from across the Global South and beyond took the most ambitious coordinated action since Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza began 21 months ago. Convened by The Hague Group and co-chaired by the governments of Colombia and South Africa, the Emergency Conference on Palestine brought together 30 states for two days of intensive deliberation — and emerged with a concrete, coordinated six-point plan to restrain Israel’s war machine and uphold international law. States took up the call from their host, Colombian President and Progressive International Council Member Gustavo Petro, who had urged them to be “protagonists together.” Twelve governments signed onto the measures immediately. The rest now have a deadline: 20 September 2025, on the eve of the United Nations General Assembly. The unprecedented six measures commit states to:     Prevent military and dual use exports to Israel.     Refuse Israeli weapons transfers at their ports.     Prevent vessels carrying weapons to Israel under their national flags.     Review all public contracts to prevent public institutions and funds from supporting Israel’s illegal occupation.     Pursue justice for international crimes.     Support universal jurisdiction to hold perpetrators accountable. “We came to Bogotá to make history — and we did,” said Colombian President Gustavo Petro. “Together, we have begun the work of ending the era of impunity. These measures show that we will no longer allow international law to be treated as optional, or Palestinian life as disposable.” The measures are not symbolic. They are grounded in binding obligations under international law — including the International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation unlawful, and September 2024’s UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/24, which gave states a 12-month deadline to act. UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory Francesca Albanese called them “a momentous step forward.” “The Hague Group was born to advance international law in an era of impunity,” said South Africa’s Foreign Minister, Ronald Lamola. “The measures adopted in Bogotá show that we are serious — and that coordinated state action is possible.” The response from Washington was swift — and revealing. In a threatening statement to journalists, a US State Department spokesperson accused The Hague Group of “seeking to isolate Israel” and warned that the US would “aggressively defend our interests, our military, and our allies, including Israel, from such coordinated legal and diplomatic” actions. But instead of deterring action, the threats have only clarified the stakes. In Bogotá, states did not flinch. They acted — and they invite the world to join them. The deadline for further states to take up the measures is now two months away. And with it, the pressure is mounting for governments across the world — from Brazil to Ireland, Chile to Spain — to match words with action. As Albanese said, “the clock is now ticking for states — from Europe to the Arab world and beyond — to join them.” This is not a moment to observe. It is a moment to act. Share the Joint Statement from Bogotá and popularise the six measures. Write to your elected representative and your government and demand they sign on before 20 September. History was made in Bogotá. Now, it’s up to all of us to ensure it becomes reality, that Palestinian life is not disposable and international law is not optional. The era of impunity is coming to an end. Palestine is not alone. In solidarity, The Progressive International Secretariat  
    • Most countries charge for entry to museums and galleries, often a different rate for locals (tax payers) and foreign nationals. The National Gallery could do this, also places like the Museums in South Kensington, the British Library and other tax-funded institutions. Many cities abroad add a tourist tax to hotel bills. It means tourists help pay for public services.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...